Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we do agree that the License of Python 2.1.1, according to the
> FSF, is compatible with the GPL ?
Yes!
> This section is incorrect, in that Python 1.6.1 has yet another
> different license. It should read something like
>
> The License of
* Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011107 16:08]:
> Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > Python 1.6.1 is essentially the same as Python 1.6, with a few minor
> >> > bug fixes, and with a different license that enables later versions
> >> > to be GPL-compatible.
> >>
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Python 1.6.1 is essentially the same as Python 1.6, with a few minor
>> > bug fixes, and with a different license that enables later versions
>> > to be GPL-compatible.
>>
>> The license claims to be GPL compatible, but according to the
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 03:10:31PM +0100, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
| * Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011107 15:04]:
| > Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > > It's probably better to check if you're unsure rather than speculate or
| > > guess. From the 2.1.1 LICENCE file:
| >
* Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011107 15:04]:
> Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It's probably better to check if you're unsure rather than speculate or
> > guess. From the 2.1.1 LICENCE file:
> >
> > Python 1.6.1 is essentially the same as Python 1.6, with a few mino
Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's probably better to check if you're unsure rather than speculate or
> guess. From the 2.1.1 LICENCE file:
>
> Python 1.6.1 is essentially the same as Python 1.6, with a few minor
> bug fixes, and with a different license that enables late
dman wrote:
> As I understand/recall the history, python 2.0 and 2.1 are not "GPL
> compatible". However, 2.0.1 and 2.1.1 (note the micro version
> increase) are "GPL Compatible".
It's probably better to check if you're unsure rather than speculate or
guess. From the 2.1.1 LICENCE file:
Pyt
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 11:05:29PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
| Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
|
| Please Cc: me, because I am not on the list.
|
| > python-ecasound
|
| I have been looking at python 2.1, and python2.1 debian/copyright file tells
| me that it is "not G
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> I have been looking at python 2.1, and python2.1 debian/copyright file tells
> me that it is "not GPL compatible".
>
> Is it still so?
No. Python 2.1 is derived from 1.6.1 and _is_ GPL compatible.
According to some laywers Python 2.0 is not GPL. According to other
laywer
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
Please Cc: me, because I am not on the list.
> python-ecasound
I have been looking at python 2.1, and python2.1 debian/copyright file tells
me that it is "not GPL compatible".
Is it still so?
regards,
junichi
--
[EMAIL PROTECT
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You get this mail, because you are the maintainer of packages probably
> affected by the change of the Python version. Followups and replies,
> which could be of interest for all "Python packagers", should be sent to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your packages ar
11 matches
Mail list logo
